Asked by: Lord Allen of Kensington (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many custodial sentences were given as a result of prosecutions brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what was the length of each such custodial sentence awarded.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, can be viewed in the table below.
Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (1), England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016 (2)(3)(4) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outcome | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeded against | 1,999 | 1,897 | 1,523 | 1,188 | 1,039 |
Found Guilty | 1,535 | 1,435 | 1,161 | 899 | 807 |
Sentenced | 1,533 | 1,431 | 1,159 | 902 | 807 |
of which |
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate custody | 118 | 107 | 97 | 84 | 71 |
of which |
|
|
|
|
|
up to 3 months | 44 | 42 | 44 | 32 | 29 |
3 months and up to six | 71 | 59 | 52 | 45 | 38 |
Six months | 3 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Includes offences under SS 4, 5, 6(1),6(2) 7, 8, 9, 13(6) and 34(9) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown Court, nay be sentenced in the following year. | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services – Ministry of Justice. | |||||
Ref: PQ HL 1469 1470 |
|
|
|
|
|
Asked by: Lord Allen of Kensington (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions have been brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many prosecutions were successful in each of those years.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, can be viewed in the table below.
Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (1), England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016 (2)(3)(4) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outcome | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeded against | 1,999 | 1,897 | 1,523 | 1,188 | 1,039 |
Found Guilty | 1,535 | 1,435 | 1,161 | 899 | 807 |
Sentenced | 1,533 | 1,431 | 1,159 | 902 | 807 |
of which |
|
|
|
|
|
Immediate custody | 118 | 107 | 97 | 84 | 71 |
of which |
|
|
|
|
|
up to 3 months | 44 | 42 | 44 | 32 | 29 |
3 months and up to six | 71 | 59 | 52 | 45 | 38 |
Six months | 3 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) Includes offences under SS 4, 5, 6(1),6(2) 7, 8, 9, 13(6) and 34(9) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) The number of offenders sentenced can differ from those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty in a particular year, and committed for sentence at the Crown Court, nay be sentenced in the following year. | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services – Ministry of Justice. | |||||
Ref: PQ HL 1469 1470 |
|
|
|
|
|
Asked by: Lord Allen of Kensington (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
Her Majesty's Government when sentencing policy for offences which fall under the Animal Welfare Act (2006) was last reviewed; and when they plan to next review that policy.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs is responsible for determining the maximum penalties for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Any proposals to change the maximum penalties would require the approval of the Cabinet’s Social Reform (Home Affairs) sub-Committee. The Government keeps maximum penalties under review. This includes sentencing trends, and whether there is any evidence that the courts may be finding their sentencing powers inadequate. The last review was conducted in the context of the Government’s response to the House of Commons EFRA Committee report on animal welfare published on 2 February 2017 on EFRA website. Government noted in its response that the Sentencing Council has reviewed the magistrates’ court sentencing guidelines, including those in relation to animal cruelty cases. In their revised guideline, published on their website, the Sentencing Council aims to ensure that the most serious cases of animal cruelty receive appropriate severe sentences, within the available maximum penalty.
Asked by: Lord Allen of Kensington (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
Her Majesty's Government which secretaries of state are involved in determining sentencing policy for offences which fall under the Animal Welfare Act (2006); and which cabinet committee, if any, is required to give approval to any alteration of sentencing policy for offences committed under that Act.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs is responsible for determining the maximum penalties for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Any proposals to change the maximum penalties would require the approval of the Cabinet’s Social Reform (Home Affairs) sub-Committee. The Government keeps maximum penalties under review. This includes sentencing trends, and whether there is any evidence that the courts may be finding their sentencing powers inadequate. The last review was conducted in the context of the Government’s response to the House of Commons EFRA Committee report on animal welfare published on 2 February 2017 on EFRA website. Government noted in its response that the Sentencing Council has reviewed the magistrates’ court sentencing guidelines, including those in relation to animal cruelty cases. In their revised guideline, published on their website, the Sentencing Council aims to ensure that the most serious cases of animal cruelty receive appropriate severe sentences, within the available maximum penalty.
Asked by: Lord Allen of Kensington (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effect on British farmers if the UK becomes subject to the five per cent agriculture subsidy cap imposed by the World Trade Organisation on non-EU members, following the UK's withdrawal from the EU
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Our focus is on getting the best deal possible for our farming industry and on providing stability for farmers as we leave the EU.
The UK’s World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments are currently set out within the EU’s schedules. We are developing UK-specific schedules that will replicate the EU’s current obligations at the WTO, including a share of the EU allowance for providing domestic support to agriculture, known as the Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS).
The EU currently has a €72 billion allowance for AMS of which it only uses a small portion. This allowance is in addition to the amount of five per cent of the value of production which all WTO members are allowed to spend on trade distorting subsidies for agriculture.